How to decarbonize the grid and electrify everything | John Doerr and Hal Harvey

[@FredAF]

This is the kind of content the world needs. Important matters need to be talked about if we want to make a better world, but we can't forget that just talking about it isn't enough.

[@jared4034]

It's refreshing to listen to a TED talk which brings together subject matter experts for a conversation addressing the specific components of a proposed social or ecological change.

[@phdnk]

That's not a conversation but a paly being acted out with all the lines learned by heart.

[@Larsoff]

@@phdnk This shouldn't be political or conspiracy. They are professionals in their field having a discusuion to improve electrical infrastructure. They know what they're talking about. You might understand the concept better if you are a high skill professional. Give thoughts into it with an open mind

[@christophedobbels8877]

@@phdnk Yet it informed me way more than your comment.

[@vassilpapadak]

@@phdnk Indeed it's a presentation, but the words are powerful

[@hany259]

Right? Something useful, rather than a 20 minute seminar explaining why 8 hours of sleep is healthy.

[@MANBEARPIG248]

Finally someone talking about the solutions rather than problems

[@tomeryud]

every politician ever: "thats illegal!"

[@Tony-yd1vx]

How are greedy corporations supposed to make big profits?

[@raprice6846]

Thing is solar and wind are cheap because they don’t put out enough energy to “pay” for themselves. However getting this stuff to lower world country’s can boost advancements and energy around any country you want

[@Tony-yd1vx]

@@raprice6846 Wind turbines don't pay for themselves? Why do you say that? The wind farm I worked on made over 35 million a year. They sell the power generated to the local power companies.

[@raprice6846]

@@Tony-yd1vx One turbine produces 6,000 kWh per year, one 7.5 kWh solar panel produces almost 11,000 kWh per year. A domestic midsized 5 kWh turbine can produce ~8,500 kWh per year. It’s the seemingly least efficient one out of the “ renewable and sustainable” resources

[@mxbw]

I'm a big believer in decarbonizing the grid and I find it crazy that nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned once. I live in France and we already have a largely decarbonized grid all the while working on renewables as well. New tech exists in the nuclear field making them extremely safe and much more efficient with waste. Sad that nuclear doesn't get a mention.

[@HubertLR]

"I find it crazy that nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned once" its simply because they live in a politically correct little illusion. Cut off from reality.

[@DirtyPoul]

Rewatch around 3:00. Hal says it used to be expensive to decarbonize the grid. And it was for France. You did it the cheapest way possible back then through nuclear energy. But look at the graph about the price of wind and solar. They're now both far cheaper than nuclear power is because the price of nuclear energy has been on a plateau for the past decade, tending more towards a rise in price than a fall. They didn't mention nuclear energy because nuclear energy is more or less irrelevant when looking to the future because of its poor economics compared to solar and wind in combination with batteries and Power-to-X. These four technologies have moved from basically impossible ten years ago to the cheapest solution now, and they keep getting cheaper. I used to be a huge advocate for nuclear energy, and I still would be if the economics still made sense.

[@mxbw]

@@DirtyPoul Fair enough. I guess a concern I still have is the increasing levels at which we consume energy (which will keep going up despite our efforts) which will require so much more land than a nuclear power plant per Watt hour. Odly enough I find renewables to be unstatable given what they require. Don't get me wrong, we MUST invest in them and develop them to get better (essentially, batteries), but I find it SO unfortunate that new nuclear tech (molten salt reactors, pebbles instead of rods etc.) isn't even part of the general conversation for the years to come.

[@DirtyPoul]

@@mxbw Electricy demand will increase dramatically as electric cars take over. But I don't think space requirement is a problem. The estimates I've seen say about 500 000 sq km if solar power had to power the entire world in 2030. That's less than the size of France. I don't see why that should pose a problem.

[@Tore_Lund]

Why is France reducing their number of reactors? You are the only of the big countries in Western Europe, which has substantial industry and still manages, to have very low footprint electricity? On the other hand, you don't have that much coast line, so alternatively, you'll need to fill the south western France with wind power to make up for it, and French farmers won't like it.

[@LeslieDugger]

Love the production style of this talk

[@martinvasilev6099]

I really want more people to watch this they need it.

[@micktrillsun2744]

“more and more efficient cars…” You’re thinking too small. We need more and more efficient transportation systems. We already have automated electric mass transit but very few cities want it. Instead they are all still expanding their oil burning infrastructure, in the form of asphalt roads and the one-person-per-vehicle model, which is a disaster for the environment.

[@Tubes12AX7k]

Walkable, small neighborhoods with zoning for convenience stores and light commerce is really the way to go. This more or less mimics the older neighborhoods in pre-automotive days which used to have a Main street, grocers, shops...etc... within walking distance of people's homes. I'm in the Northeast in the US where you still find older towns from the 1700's and 1800's and they maintain this footprint. Europe and Asia obviously still have a lot of walkable towns. We could return to this in the US by simply changing zoning restrictions a bit. For example, maybe the entrance to every modern neighborhood could be zoned for a convenience store or pharmacy. That would reduce a lot of short distance driving. Some people will want to live in more rural environments, and that's fine. But some rezoning would return us to more common sense walkable towns like we used to have at the turn of the century and earlier.

[@리주민]

Catenary wires over roads with cars and trucks that have pantographs like electric trains. Can fuel massive cities with nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric, or a bazillion solar panels and windmills.

[@Tony-yd1vx]

Mass transit sucks, it spreads viruses and you're usually surrounded by idiots.

[@MG-ik3wy]

@@Tubes12AX7k and Mick Trillsun… You're thinking too small, or too big. We need to reconnect to nature. David Orr believes that if we do not realize this connection, ecological change will not occur. I agree, we need to think locally, but sourcing locally also. Production must exclude foreign resources; resources not located within the local environment. Not only fossil fuels and natural gas, but everything foreign; plastics, fresh water, technology. Recognizing that our ecological footprint should exist within the bounds of equilibrium, reconciliation with Mother Nature will be achieved. A land-dwelling species as massive as us has never grown to a population even a tenth of ours. Abandoning our technology and integrating ourselves within the struggles that the ''unintelligent'' organism faces every hour constitutes a repair in our nature. The natural world experiences no comfort, no ease in living. Lifting ourselves out of our limited, local ecology dictates our current predicament- climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, etc. Our economic paradigm, telling us that value is in production, must be reconstituted to reflect our myopia. We don't see the harm in modernism when we've paved over the native and created an alien existence.

[@MG-ik3wy]

@@리주민 And how much ecological destruction will occur to make room for those bazillion solar panels? Or ocean windmills? Our economic paradigm must shift if we are to make any progress towards solving these wicked problems collectively. For we can solve climate change, but the wake of that solution will create widespread biodiversity loss and pollution, increasing our ecological footprint. Logic dictates that technological innovation can never reconcile us with nature.

[@windywendi]

Me: just opened a bag of potato chips Speaker: Do you know how much Americans spend on potato chips?

[@MichaelLee-nn9fo]

I think you meant half bag of potato chips and half bag of air 😂😂😂😂

[@windywendi]

@@MichaelLee-nn9fo Exactly XD

[@cristyramirez7329]

@@MichaelLee-nn9fo I think you meant half bag of air and half of potato chip crumbles. lol

[@Tony-yd1vx]

@@MichaelLee-nn9foPotato chip bags are not full of air, but of nitrogen gas. This is done to prevent the chips from oxidizing, which is part of what makes them go stale. Oxygen is very reactive, and likes to combine with other molecules whenever it can, causing chemical changes to take place

[@i3_13]

@@Tony-yd1vx ain't air, gas?lol

[@mossm717]

It’s great that there are climate policy specialists, these are definitely the people we need to be listening to more when making decisions in government. (From the talk) Looks like the biggest things we need to do are: 1. invest more in renewables to signal companies to scale up production and focus on sustainable energy. 2. Focus on the few individuals who actually have control over the big decisions, the Local elected energy positions 3. Create a definite plan as a country and continually measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.

[@brokkoliomg6103]

it's a great summary but i would still recommend watching the whole thing as it goes deeper into the information you need if you want to get active to change something

[@caitlinpreece9811]

Carbon dioxide is life. Electrify everything means to kill everything. People know so little these days.

[@alex.velasco]

@@caitlinpreece9811 you should never have dropped out of high-school.

[@Noukz37]

Wow, the best "Countdown" video thus far! I could listen to these two gentlemen for hours! Also, shame they didn't mention how broken our agriculture and food production is, and how easy it is to solve. EDIT: Also, I forgot to add that, while living in Shenzhen for almost 5 years, I noticed first hand how quickly their public transport shifted, it was amazing! And bear in mind, we're talking about a city of a 15 million people.

[@evan393]

I like this format where there's a conversation. Since TED talks aren't given on a stage at the moment there's opportunities to diversify and take advantage of new presentation formats.

[@ikihaku]

For everyone advocating for nuclear. Unfortunately, nuclear is quite expensive, a lot of money and expertise is required to build, maintain and decommission a nuclear power plant. There are a lot of safety and location requirements, plus it’s a big chunk of generation in one place (up to 3000MW an equivalent of 1000-2000 wind turbines), so a powerful distribution grid is needed.

[@tenzinlegtsok]

Excellent content TED. Please keep making more in depth conversations about climate change like this. It would be great to hear from some scientists, policy makers, and entrepreneurs in the field.

[@stevenarrasmith7540]

How do you build a Star Trek future when half the country is in a tribal death cult?

[@elinope4745]

If they will happily let you in and share information with you then are they a cult? If you do not let them in or share information with them, then perhaps you are the cult. The cult is the one doesn't allow outside opinions in, the cult is the one that won't look at evidence and instead stick to authority figures instead of math. I do agree with you on the term "cult" though. I am not a climate change denier.

[@ZesPak]

@@elinope4745 are these guys not openly talking solutions though?

[@JiHottist]

Wtf why did no one send me an invite.

[@lukasbeja1269]

These two guys give me hope in this world. There is nothing better than being reasonable and realistic.

[@erikdingeldein3359]

nuclear my dudes

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@alex.velasco]

Nuclear: private corporations enjoy the profits, then taxpayers pay to clean up. Nuclear is the most expensive option, once you factor in cost of complete DISPOSAL of nuclear waste.

[@JoyRaptor]

If solar and wind was REALLY so cheap it wouldn't need subsidies.

[@miken4591]

It now doesn’t need subsidies. Nearly all new power sources since 2018 have been renewable since they are the cheapest. It will still take time to replace all existing sources.

[@mv80401]

So glad I came across this. Had bought the book just prior to a big home renovation (energy retrofit actually: no more gas) and forgot I had it. Now I just have to find it :)

[@jacobdu1215]

the interview environment is so fantastic

[@christophedobbels8877]

And finally a discussion with enough space inbetween.

[@Tony-yd1vx]

Thanks

[@lgcapital7668]

Since the Kyoto protocol, carbon emissions by the US have reduced. China and India have increased and increased dramatically. Issue must be addressed globally. Can't throw around some meaningless statistic on the number of electric buses in China vs USA without context.

[@doritoification]

literally no mention of nuclear. Sigh

[@doritoification]

@Old Soul it can be part of the solution

[@ukrytykrytyk8477]

@Old Soul Look at France or Ontario province in Canada! Nuclear is a solution working there successfully for many decades already! Compare that with the neighboring Germany that is dumping billions of Euros on the renewables with no much improvement in the reduction of emissions.

[@-LightningRod-]

Nuclear is too expensive

[@ukrytykrytyk8477]

@@-LightningRod- Tell French that who has one of the cheapest electricity in Europe from nuclear mostly. Renewables are expensive when you factor in the energy storage necessary for stable power supply and for the night time use.

[@dwaynejava]

A very important discussion... one thing not mentioned is that big oil has lots of money to fund politicians to not move to tenewable energy.

[@jammer6524]

BIg oil did a great job selling anti science to make climate change a non problem.

[@ahmadalajrami4635]

TED , I love you so much, Thank you

[@kurtfrancisco8768]

this is more like a TV show than a ted talk

[@sunraiii]

In 20 years new generations will be confused about why we sat so far apart from each other

[@ozzyfromspace]

About the point he raised praising Shenzhen for creating policy shifts that basically forced taxis to go electric: I watched a DW(?) documentary where taxi drivers complained that they were losing revenue because whenever they had to refuel their vehicles, it was 20 to 30 minutes to recharge, and it adds up over time. The electric vehicle shift actually hurt them economically. My point, as someone that cares deeply about the future of our climate, is that we need to examine our propositions more carefully, because while we certainly have good intentions, this massive shifts could really hurt people, and that awareness is a central barrier to progress. As you might recall, the Trump Administration spend a lot of time undoing Obama-era regulations because they held the position that said policies made it harder for American businesses to thrive. Whether or not that was an accurate assessment is beyond the point. We won't be able to make lasting change if we don't account for the people that could end up on the short end of this massive shift to electric, because if they feel that they will get hurt during the transition, they’ll fight you on every step of the way. And rightly so.

[@GB-uc3ni]

It's a shame that nuclear power isn't being considered by governments of major polluters because of one incident.

[@jjjjj6424]

Sounds safe

[@Nihilistic_Optimist]

There is more than one incident world-wide but perhaps you have specific country in mind.

[@alexcontreras6103]

@@Nihilistic_Optimist yea 2 chernobly and fukashima out of 475 that were running

[@christophergruenwald5054]

Nuclear is the only way we’ll get the electricity we need to power everything without destroying the planet in the process.

[@DirtyPoul]

@**it happens Your comment is filled with misconceptions. 1. Thorium nuclear power is at best an option for research. It doesn't exist as a solution yet, and it's not certain that it will ever become economical to implement it. Relying on such a technology would be ill-advised to say the least. 2. Wind and solar doesn't require much space. Sure, it requires more than nuclear energy, but it's not a problem. It would require about 500 000 sq km using solar panels. That's essentially nothing in the grand scheme of things. How much space did you think it would require? 3. Rooftop solar panels cost about twice as much per kWh produced as utility-scale solar making it a poor option considering that land use is not a significant problem. The reason why nuclear is not a great solution for the future is not because of poor safety, but because of poor economics.

[@noninvasive_rectal_probe8990]

WOW! THAT INTERVIEWER IS LEGIT!!!!!!!!!

[@bckelley90]

This video needs more views

[@sooraj1497]

Can listen to Hal the entire day

[@SajadJalilian]

So what about "Molten salt thorium-based nuclear power" ??!!

[@jeremyg9323]

There are quite a few technologies they didn't address. I was picturing them talking about carbon capture when they turned to car batteries. That said, what they're talking about is policy systems around these techs. That's universal to what we both expected to hear about.

[@Tony-yd1vx]

What about blue energy?

[@vassilpapadak]

It's not the exact how, it's the plan that matters the most

[@jeremyg9323]

@Bryan Rip policy frameworks dont apply to any one technology os the thing. The how isnt going to be lets add more nuclear power, unless your country is outright communist. The how (usually) is an increasing incentivization to find better tech. There is a how, just not in the way you imagine. That being said, its true policy usually is much more restrictive for nuclear power, for very real concerns

[@lutaayam]

I just want to say I love the set on the interview

[@amosjsoma]

It's good that you did the research to tell us that the city in China has 18,000 electric buses. I wish you had carried your research a bit further to tell us how many coal fired electrical generating plants they built to charge those buses.

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

Years ago I commissioned an electronics expert to create, populate three 3 layer printed circuit boards, a total of ~500 microwave small pin dual diodes, such that each of the three pins extending from the packages went to the appropriate layer so all the diodes became connected in massive parallel, and encase everything in an aluminum box. He then tested the box for DC power production and found zero power production. I recently realized that I should have chosen zero bias diodes. This means that many people can test the hypothesis that the correct diodes in parallel or parallel series can produce measurable power. Aloha, Charles M Brown lll Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754

[@sampadsaha3031]

Only Solar and Wind can't fulfill our requirements. A combination of Solar-Wind-Nuclear-Hydro power will be more sustainable.

[@-LightningRod-]

why cant solarwind supply demands?

[@ozzyfromspace]

Fun fact. Atmospheric carbon is about 417 parts per million (ppm). Some people think such a tiny fraction means we're good 👍🏽 but it was actually about 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800s. So, we're actually on track to DOUBLE the amount of carbon in the atmosphere -- which, of course, isn't a good thing. The other problem is that the raw volumetric density of atmospheric carbon dioxide is so low that you can't just "scrub it" out of the air. We're at the point where whatever solutions we use to decrease the amount of CO2 in the air over time will need some mind boggling scale. But I suppose this is one of those, "No, it's not impossible. It's necessary" type situations. Godspeed, Earthlings.

[@DirtyPoul]

The future of carbon capture looks bright, but it will take time to make it economical. Until then, we have to do everything we can to reduce our CO2 emissions.

[@ozzyfromspace]

@@DirtyPoul I completely agree with you. I’d like to see architects making massive carbon capture technologies statement pieces in cities all around the world. I’d love to wake up to a view of sunny San Francisco, with a (relatively small) carbon capture tower germinating in the corner of a beautiful skyline. Structures like that might become symbols of hope of human action. Just wishful thinking I suppose. But it would be nice 😅

[@ozzyfromspace]

@George Mann I accept that you may be right. I certainly don’t have the expertise required to evaluate the practicality of carbon capture methods. But certainly at 417ppm, it’s gotta be a chemical engineering headache

[@horst4439]

regarding the airbourne fraction of carbon dioxide. Most of the stuff was gently consumed by the oceans. The sheer amount of CO2 isn't even visible when not carefully taking into account the oceans. If we suck something out of the air, the oceans will replenish this from their "reserves". And they will do this much more violent, if they are warmer than in the past ... And that's the path we are on right now.

[@beachcomber2008]

It's OK to use molten salt nuclear fission reactors to produce hydrogen, because of their low energy cost when used for high-temperature chemical processing. Perhaps it's the only sensible way.

[@kenshea741]

Made me remember these lyrics. "What are you, what are you waiting for?"

[@리주민]

Stutter?

[@ozzyfromspace]

In my home country of Zambia, the median salary is about $10/day (compared to about $92/day here in the US). At $10/day, you're just not thinking about solar power. Most cities in Zambia (even the capital of Lusaka) don't have electricity at least half of the time. Climate action is positively correlated with GDP per capita. This means that in practice, fighting climate change at scale is mostly the role of wealthier countries, as it should be, given that their massive economic output induced this catastrophe in the first place. That's the hard, uncomfortable truth. We're well past the efficacy of individual action. Now this climate crisis has fallen into the hands of well-off countries and innovative companies. Still, nice talk. It just makes the socioeconomic dynamics seem more straightforward that they really are.

[@DirtyPoul]

"At $10/day, you're just not thinking about solar power." On the contrary, that's exactly why you should think very hard about solar power, as it is the cheapest form of electricity generation out there. Even more so if wealthy countries support it financially, as they ought to.

[@ozzyfromspace]

@@DirtyPoul I agree with you that it makes long-term economic sense to go with solar. It is now the cheapest form of energy. All I’m saying is, people don’t spend when they don’t have enough for themselves; that’s austerity. The best way to demonstrate it is by appreciating that Zambians don’t have access to electricity like 50% of the time (daily blackouts are a staple). This hampers stable, economic output, which hurts Zambian citizens. The most reasonable thing to do would be to put up cheap solar, get industry moving, and find that in the long term, citizens are more prosperous despite spending large sums of money on a grid infrastructure project (as a collective). But people hold onto their money REALLY tightly. It’s not the most rational thing to do, but the response makes sense. So, ofc I agree with your point, but I also see how poor people make decisions, and can safely tell you that there are a plethora of unexpected side-arguments you have to scale to make progress happen. Thanks for disagreeing in such a civil way, and best wishes 🙏🏽

[@DirtyPoul]

@@ozzyfromspace I absolutely agree with you here. It sounded to me that you were defending opting for fossil fuels instead of solar because "solar isn't on their minds". I see that I misinterpreted your comment :)

[@DirtyPoul]

@George Mann I'd like an explanation for what "$8000/kw avg output" means, as well as links to sources for your figures. That goes for all your three comments.

[@hap-hap728]

Really impressive. I like that conversation.

[@bmarquis3500]

Takes a lot of balls to talk about energy for 20 minutes without mentioning nuclear once.

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@leehayward8609]

This is a brilliant video. Hope they do more of these style chats.

[@KlimovArtem1]

Remove all taxes from clean energy and all related to it businesses. Raise taxes for fossil fuel-related businesses. Same for plastic and trash production - raise for traditional plastics, eliminate for biodegradable ones. Like, dramatically. The industries will do the rest, they will find a way to produce enough green energy and materials.

[@MickeyMouse-ef4ez]

"Electrify the grid" Like Tron?

[@therugburnz]

Batteries? The water up, water down thing helps solves the problem for the grid but not individual cars. Mass transit could be run without chemical batteries. This is going to be difficult. The chemical batteries is a big FN deal. We have to mine the metals and that causes huge damage to the environment.

[@KLNT_BeastWood]

This sounds dope!!.... I'll be back with my thoughts afterwards lol

[@vassilpapadak]

Amazing presentation. Everybody should see this. I am sharing

[@humberabdulah4733]

you can use nuclear reactor or thorium to replace coal base power plant

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@alex.velasco]

Nuclear: private corporations enjoy the profits, then taxpayers pay to clean up. Nuclear is the most expensive option, once you factor in cost of complete DISPOSAL of nuclear waste.

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

"CoAl'S cLeAn, iT's ClEaN !" -Some guy you might've seen on tv

[@kate8160]

I love today’s format!

[@vertigoz]

Nothing beats clean coal

[@jeremyg9323]

But only in all the worst ways

[@vertigoz]

@@jeremyg9323 us got the cleanest coal, the cleanest water, the cleanest air

[@jeremyg9323]

@@vertigoz I'm curious. Would you mind telling me just what clean means to you?

[@vertigoz]

@@jeremyg9323 I have no idea, that was something I've heard

[@jeremyg9323]

@@vertigoz oh, lol, okay :) i was assuming there was some depth to what you were trying to say. Guess I've been bamboozled. cheers, mate

[@TheFuturistTom]

I love TED! They inspired my sci-fi/futurist channel!!

[@userr_aa]

What a great conversation!

[@Gzimmy26]

Just a question: I looked it up on google and it says that coal runs at 3.2 c/kW/h. I’m interested, can someone explain to me why they’re saying that solar is cheapest when the cost of production is twice that of coal? This is a really interesting subject, great talk!

[@jammer6524]

Where did your numbers come from. The cost of coal-fired energy coming in at $60 to $143 per MWh and natural gas combined cycle coming in at $41 to $74 per MWh. Unsubsidized wind projects costing between $32 and $62 per megawatt-hour and unsubsidized utility-scale solar ranges from $32-$42/MWh.

[@aquariusthompson8212]

Nobody took a drink of the good crisp social distant water lol

[@brouiller]

"I'm at heart a Capitalist." Let us all work together to exploit this problem Capitalists created through entrepreneurship so that we can further exploit the working class while fixing the problem we created. Brilliant!

[@philipploeffler7779]

I totally agree to the approach that it is vital to convince the most important decision makers/influencers in America. And to pinpoint it down to the number of only 90 commissioners is really fascinating and makes me optimistic that with focus and determination it really can be done!

[@justinmclaren4268]

Fun fact... every google search uses the energy of boiling the kettle twice.

[@RampinRabit]

This is so important. Looking forward to the challenges that lay ahead of us

[@andrewmarinelli1797]

They fail to mention the detrimental effects agriculture is having on our ecosystems. The raising of cattle and the food cattle consumes and the growth rate this sector is seeing is much of the reason for deforestation. Cattle emits large portions of methane gas and the water consumption for cattle is significantly higher than that of people. Deforestation and altering land to support the agricultural economic sector contributes roughly 30% of greenhouse gases (per NPR). We need to look at this issue holistically and not exclusively focus on the transportation and energy sectors.

[@MrAykut23]

For better or for worse 2 of the smartest guys that ive listened to in a while

[@hdmat101]

I pee in the shower:it saves water.

[@tomeryud]

thank you for your contribution brave man

[@DW-dd4iw]

On purpose or accidentally?

[@hdmat101]

@@DW-dd4iw no , I pretend that I am R. Kelly and the shower drain is a teenage girl.

[@slamsaren]

SAY IT AS IT IS, MORE THAN HALF OF THE GREENHOUSE GASES COME FROM AGRICULTURE

[@3mtech]

Whaaat? You're crazy. Food comes from walmart and mcdonalds.

[@slamsaren]

@@3mtech haha, reminds me of the girl that was outraged at hunters and told them to buy their meat at the store so no animals would be harmed. There is a very big problem in America you can not speak out against the meat industry, it is in fact illegal, even if you are trying share scientifically proven facts, it has gone so far you might even be marked as a terrorist under the patriot act.

[@christophergruenwald5054]

Spray foam insulation greatly reduces energy use of homes and building for heating and cooling. More than 50%. And that’s forever, not just once.

[@cynthiavanteylingen7922]

This year i got my own home and the first thing i did was get the company vattenfall to supply my electricity. Now when u drive to work in my volkswagen up blue motion technology indrive by the windmill that provides my energys home. That gives me hope and happyness to continue on my path to live greener. This year i cant do moe cause it costs to much money and due to covid ive got trouble paying bills on time. But next year hopefully they got covid numbers to zero and im out of money trouble and life goes back to well normal. And i can get money together to get rid of gas cooking and move to electricity cooking. Im doing a lot more for the environment but it would take an essay to tell u all. My advice to all individuals out there wanting needing to do more in their environmenr google lists online for every small and big thing u can do to help ur planet. Every little bit counts and will eventually turn into bigger moves. Just look at greta her school striking made her famous for her love for our home planet. Like they said in game of thrones. One small man can cast a large shadow. Goodluck and hopefully more people go greener green for our home.

[@HubertLR]

Ever heard about intermittency ?

[@miguelmatos3326]

Really interesting video with good information

[@VerenaSatriani]

Have a great day, everyone. Stay calm, blessed and be as awesome as you are.

[@alexpotts6520]

If people spent half as much time actually engaging with what we can do about climate change rather than endlessly arguing about whose fault it is, we'd be much closer to where we need to be. It's not like, if one side won that unwinnable argument, the problem would disappear in a puff of logic.

[@DaBlondDude]

As a policy approach, this can work. When it comes to individual companies though It occurs to me that $$ is an issue for many; specifically, why would a business invest in replacing current equipment, assuming they can even find the money? Their costs would have to be passed on to their customers so unless they all do it, those who do lose clients to those who don't

[@johnsweeney6534]

I was attracted by the chance to listen to John Doerr. He earned his fame in the computing field. Although clearly intelligent he has yet to demonstrate that his abilities transfer to another field. Hal Harvey has written a book on government policies leading to success in producing change. As with John Doerr I am uncertain Hal's skills transfer to the issue of climate change. It was fascinating to me to watch these two giants share ideas. They share ideas borrowed from past successes and methods also borrowed from past successes and other fields of human endeavor. Unfortunately those ideas do not easily transfer to climate change. Hal criticized setting automobile emissions to a fixed limit instead of a yearly increasing percentile reduction. Both approaches lead to success, but Hal dwelt upon examples demonstrating better success using the annual percentile approach. Sadly the underlying science was unknown. Also top automotive engineers felt confident of eventually achieving the fixed goal, but felt ICE vehicles could never extend that success beyond that limit. Politicians live on success, not lofty goals, so the government cautiously selected the fixed goal. Likewise John Doerr wants to use computers and massive databases to model the planet's carbon emissions. Using that database he would identify the sources of carbon dioxide emissions, the costs to recover those emissions, and the probabilities of success. He has taken proven methods to embellish the aura of such incredible goals. Unfortunately he forgot or is not aware of the years of effort and research needed to create proven methods for using wood structures to sequester carbon. Although now a proven fact, it was vociferously doubted by leading environmentalists for many years. We lack the funding and quantity of scientists to identify all the basic facts to be used in John Doerr's massive database of the planet's green house gases.

[@rodolfovieyra5122]

We just need to put the money in the hands of people like this

[@johnserrao9322]

Is this guy's name really John Doer? I guess he's the man for action.

[@RKYT0]

why do you never talk about traffic. the US has most problems with replacing cars and airplanes with trains. most trains are not even carbon-neutral themselves. there is no railway grid for city to city or state to state travel. neither cheap nor fast traveling trains. NONE. Inside the cities, there is no place for public transport like in europe or japan. How is the US face this issue? How do you Decarbonize Traffic and Transport?

[@lindafoster8182]

If we could start selling houses with yards that weren’t grass but had gardens of food in them, it would help with the carbon. Instead we have HOA’s that won’t let you plant in your yard unless it’s prescribed bushes and grass.

[@thatkidafraid3891]

Who would watch this in there free time?

[@christophergruenwald5054]

Nuclear. Haven’t even watched the video yet

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@drealexatos3459]

Barely made it through the distancing ceremony. Glad I did tho, interesting conversation.

[@aaronvallejo8220]

Yes, solutions not just problems. As renewably powered electricity has plummeting over the past decade, yes I think we will continue to see massive investments increase to build renewables in all regions. Through high insulation, high efficiency, electric thermal mass floor heating and electric transportation we will see economic success while phasing out fossil fuel emissions as we strive for the goal of 100% renewably powered everything.

[@carlosvicuna8211]

There is a mistake at the beginning of the video, the four sectors of the economy that generate GHG according to the IPCC are transport, buildings, industry and AFOLU (agriculture, forestry and other land use). maybe what you guys are referring to is GHG emissions generated by energy use per sources that according to IRENA are Power, Industry, Buildings and Transportation because the impact of the AFOLU sector in terms of energy use is negligible.

[@sayrith]

Ignoring nuclear, I see.

[@DirtyPoul]

Because it's more expensive than solar and wind + batteries and Power-to-X.

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@pascalnnebedum6304]

No one is talking about the decarbonization of HEAT. Heat covers 35% of Global Emissions; electricity only covers 17% of that 35%, and fossil fuels are used for the remaining 83%. Grid electricity decarbonization only mitigates a peanut scope of the Global Emissions Reduction!

[@tylerstannard4670]

Yes, I want to work on implementing the new technologies at scale.

[@StevenKHarrison]

China has policies, the US has politics.

[@elinope4745]

Not everyone should be concerned with climate change. Only those who benefit from society should be concerned with climate change. Those who are burdened by society should not be concerned with climate change, as it will damage society and limit its ability to restrict them.

[@plyguy]

Notes: - Climate change is an inequity machine, those who contributed the least are impacted the most - Climate change transcends normal time scales, when CO2e enters the atmosphere, it lasts for thousands of years - CO2e is embedded in every aspect of our industrial economy, the solution is to decarbonize the electrical grid, electrify everything plugged into it - Innovation and distribution is key, but we need good policy, accountable decision-makers, and a detailed plan with funding and staffers, not open-ended goals - To move the conversation forward, we need good data and carbon accounting, to understand real-time emissions at individual building fidelity

[@jaapscheele9677]

It is a shame that such an electrifying topic is reduced to two people talking... even a recorded podcast is more interesting as this lacks any chemistry. And that is a shame, because this is an important topic

[@blake9541]

"We need a plan" ...... uuuuuh The Green New Deal is kinda based

[@chapter4travels]

The GND has nothing to do with climate change.

[@nooffense5956]

But China produces electricity with coal-fired electrical power plant. +I agree that is a great first step. But, I just wanted to say all countries changing their vehicles to electric cars really need to change their electrocity production method first. (Not only China) That's because consuming coal fuel produces severe environmental problems . Lots of countries have used 'coal' a lot for a long time. (China is one of the largest coal consuming countries until now.) So, we have to change the way to produce electricity first if we really care about the earth.

[@pdken3081]

That's true, they're not perfect but they are leading the way.

[@windywendi]

It's the first step towards total electrification. You can't electrify the country with gas or diesel powered vehicles running everywhere.

[@alliasbright2083]

China is leading the way in nuclear and renewables, with the most nuclear power plants open in the last decade. They are the main reason why solar is so cheap, they are also making nuclear cheaper. China plans to become fully co2-neutral by 2060, with a high share renewables and a lower share of nuclear. If China manages to do this, the worldwide co2 emissions will fall drastically. Let's all hope they can make it.

[@DirtyPoul]

"So, we have to change the way to produce electricity first if we really care about the earth." Not first. We need to do both simulatenuously because they complement each other.

[@miken4591]

I also like the point that KZbin always gives me ICE ads during blogs on climate change - are they deliberately trying to waste ICE advertisers dollars?

[@Nick-xn5nk]

I love videos like this where they talk about climate change

[@derektynan6670]

Where are they getting this notion that solar and wind are the most cost effective forms of energy? Please elaborate on that with citations. I'm listening.

[@aylbdrmadison1051]

Combine all of this with giving The People a good life so they are no longer operating out of fear and naturally choose to not have so many children, then we have a recipe that is bound to succeed. We *can* do these things, *if* we work as a team. I wish you all peace and prosperity. ^-^

[@snaavs]

Who’s willing to to accept “voluntary” austerity? I know I am!

[@hank_Reardon]

It doesn't even have to be that bad, buy small houses and insulate them well, drive small cars and bike where you can, eat much less red meat. Those are the big areas.

[@KTMGUNNER]

3:33 is all you need to know. Batteries are holding the entire world back.

[@HubertLR]

And there is, apart from nuclear, no solution in sight.

[@DirtyPoul]

Pay attention to the context. He said the technology is about 80% there, meaning we can reah 80% reduction in emissions with current technologies, including batteries. Look at how much better and cheaper batteries have become over the past decade. We're talking about 85% cheaper per kWh capacity than 10 years ago, and they keep getting better and cheaper still.

[@DirtyPoul]

@@HubertLR I see you haven't followed the subject for the past decade. Look at how much cheaper solar, wind, and batteries have become over the past 10 years. Then look at the same figures for nuclear energy, and compare it. Then tell me which one you'd bet on for the future of electricity generation.

[@3mtech]

@@DirtyPoul because solar panels and wind turbines are made of plastic, Petroleum based. batteries need to be much bigger and less environmentally destructive to power cities

[@DirtyPoul]

@@3mtech Using plastics in the construction of solar panels, wind turbines, or batteries is not an environmental problem. The problem with plastics is when they're used for single use packaging and dumped afterwards, polluting nature and the oceans.

[@magnanimousmantaray8180]

Can we let conversations be conversations, and give prepared talks their appropriate forum?

[@christophedobbels8877]

A discussion allows both parties to say their beliefs. But discussions don't result in anything. I would rather have this where a scientists states their opinion. And others add correlations to it. How does this compare to other subjects? It's genial Well done to TED. Obviously when you get these "prepared" talks, you can steer the way the conversation goes. You can call to vote for a certain party for example.

[@greenmanreddog]

We need to discuss how this will work from a practical technical perspective. I love the sound of wind and solar power, but where is the electricity coming from on a still night? Electrical storage is completely infeasible on the scale required to support 100% renewable electrical power. The reality is that nuclear fission is the safest and cleanest option we have today - until nuclear fusion works.

[@forerunnert]

So you believe generating vast amounts of cheap energy is a problem? Don't you think anyone would jump into a potential multi billion market? If you build it, they will come.

[@obsoleteoptics]

Yeah let's just build more Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands and Fukushimas, to do what? Boil water to drive a steam turbine? How unimaginative, and frankly stupid, considering you still need humans to run the things, and to decommission them when they reach the end of their working life, and humans are going extinct, so without humans, what's to stop these abandoned nuclear plants from catastrophically melting down and exploding, releasing untold amounts of ionizing radiation onto the earth and into the atmosphere, thus boiling away our atmosphere and extinguishing all life on this planet?

[@JT-zy2ft]

@@forerunnert No he said the current battery technology is not yet advanced enough to fully transition to solar or wind. There’s no solar energy at night so it needs stored on batteries. Solar and wind are also just not efficient enough to fully rely on yet.

[@alliasbright2083]

Nuclear chemistry student here. Bare prices of solar and wind are really low, but they require backup from batteries (short term storage) and hydrogen (long storage). 100% could be possible, but i believe that new generation nuclear can reduce the costs of such a grid. Current nuclear is slow to deploy and has a big upfront cost, but the EROE (estimated return of energy) and EROI are the highest in the long term. But I think nuclear should change in many countries. If you want to use intermittent renewables like wind and solar, you need both long term and short term backup. The long term is hydrogen, and it has to be produced somehow. Electrolysis from renewables is an inefficient process, thus rising the cost of hydrogen. An answer? New generation molten salt high temperature reactors. Such a reactor could be used for production of hydrogen, medical and industrial isotopes and electrical power. How do we use that with a mix dependant on intermittent renewables? Well, the reactor can shift from producing hydrogen to producing energy. Thus it would not only support renewables by working even when there are bad weather conditions (i.e. high cloud cover and wind droughts), but also by producing hydrogen for long term storage. The technology needs to be developed more, but that's what i'm planning to work on. Also, some countries have better conditions for some sources than others. Scandinavia is great for nuclear, wind and hydro, while Australia has great conditions for solar.

[@alliasbright2083]

@@obsoleteoptics amazing. Everything you said was not true! Also, hydroelectric power plants have killed much more people than nuclear. Compare the deaths from Banqiao (80000-240000) to the higher rational estimate of Chernobyl (60000)

[@KlimovArtem1]

11:45 - and what these numbers should be based on? You can’t increase efficiency forever, the numbers must be realistic and based on current science and industry capacities.

[@DirtyPoul]

I'm guessing that the 4% figure fit into the doubling of fuel efficiency over the timescale mentioned earlier, but simply extended indefinitely. And no, it shouldn't be based on current science and industry capabilities. If it was, it wouldn't take future scientific breakthroughs into account. It has to be bold. If it suddenly becomes impossible, then amend the law when that happens. That shouldn't stop you from setting that goal in the first place.

[@KlimovArtem1]

@@DirtyPoul "it wouldn't take future scientific breakthroughs" - it's impossible to predict future science, it's just like predicting the market price for a certain stock. You can do it with some error near term, but quite pointless to guess for a very long term (unless you know some extra information than no others know)). So, extrapolation is fun, but don't bet on it. Scientific breakthroughs most of the times are driven not by bold goals, but by demand, curiosity and a lot of luck.

[@DirtyPoul]

@@KlimovArtem1 A percentage improvement year on year is what you'd expect rather than stagnation. That's what I was trying to say here. Just like you expect significant improvements in computer hardware because of Moore's law. Expecting no improvement wouldn't make sense. In that sense, you can bet on a certain improvement year on year. Some years will exceed that, others will show no improvement. But on average, you'll get your improvement. That's what you bet on. "Scientific breakthroughs most of the times are driven not by bold goals, but by demand, curiosity and a lot of luck." And how do you drive demand? That's right, through bold policy goals. You can force innovation in that regard. Just look what happened to aviation during WW1. Demand drove huge innovations, and that was forced through bold policy goals.

[@KlimovArtem1]

​@@DirtyPoul "A percentage improvement year on year" - right, but why would government set a goal to expect a certain percentage (4%?) every single year? How about just updating the goals/requirements every year (or a few) based on the current state of science and industry? "significant improvements in computer hardware because of Moore's law" - no no no! Not BECAUSE of Moore's law, but because of demand and thousands of smartest people working on it! And there is no such thing as a Moore's law, it's a very inaccurate simplification. 'Moore's law' is just an observation of certain characteristic in the local time scale (years, a few decades at max). It already 'doesn't work' (as a law) for a single threaded performance in the past few years. "how do you drive demand?" - you cannot drive natural demand for green energy or biodegradable plastic. If you give people a bucket of food grown the "bad way" (not caring of nature) and a bucked grown the good/clean way, but costs x3 times more, people will still buy the first one. They don't care of the oceans or air polluted, they care what they will feed their kids today. And you can't blame them for that. So, yes, only policy enforcing. But I'm totally, absolutely against micromanagement on federal level. That's not their job, they shouldn't think of 4% grow/reduction in certain parameter of certain mechanism. As I wrote in another comment, they should eliminate all taxes related to the green energy production and all related businesses and dramatically increase taxation on fossil fuel burning businesses (and also plastic production, etc). The industries will do the rest, they will find their ways of becoming cleaner. The important part here is not to damage your domestic industry while giving a foreign benefits. Like, if you just tax oil production, but your neighbor country doesn't do that, you'll end up with your companies importing the foreign cheaper product. It needs to be taxed smarter, so no matter where that thing is produced, it should be punished for harmful effects on nature.

[@SahilShirazee]

Global issues need a unified global government

[@DonBeardy]

No mention of nuclear energy 🤔

[@DirtyPoul]

Because it's too expensive compared to renewables and batteries + Power-to-X

[@-LightningRod-]

too expensive

[@blahblahblah5642]

Fun fact and irony: The green background is not real, its a green screen and they've done VFX

[@blahblahblah5642]

@@samikhamash8277 yes, even i didn't notice at first but if you look closely within different scenes its clear. They're speaking about environment, the least they could've is be in a real environment.